Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Teri Garner who wrote (11191)	7/29/2002 6:06:48 AM
From: agent99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Excellent article. CNBC was as much responsible for the bubble as those they now try to deride, by actively showcasing the overly bullish analysts, constantly cheerleading stocks, conducting superficial interviews, and generally helping to promote the circus attitude. Fleck's "Bubblevision" description is dead on. And their coverage has further been watered down by trying to become a combination of E!/ESPN and MSNBC offering lengthy and generally worthless segments on Entertainment, Sports and general news. That's why Bloomberg has attracted more serious viewers.

To: Teri Garner who wrote (11191)	7/29/2002 6:46:03 PM
From: Yogizuna	Respond to of 17683

There is absolutely no question in my mind that CNBC should be harshly criticized for becoming Bubblevision in the late 1990s, straying away from balanced market analysis and coverage in my opinion and becoming mostly a cheerleader for the old and tired aging bull market.... Yes, they had a lonely bear or two on every now and then, and David Faber and Joe Kernen had their penguins jumping into the water on Squawk Box to point out the lemming like behavior of the Wall Street analysts, but as far as the larger picture was concerned, CNBC did a fairly poor job of giving a balanced view of the market during the insane bubble period when reasonable stock valuations and common sense were thrown out the window and the lunatics were running the proverbial asylum....

To: Teri Garner who wrote (11191)	7/30/2002 9:55:36 AM
From: Ron	Respond to of 17683

This is amusing: "CNBC executives point to a report earlier this month in which one of its reporters, Mike Huckman, chased Jack B. Grubman — the embattled Salomon Smith Barney analyst — down a Manhattan street and asked him why he continued to recommend WorldCom's stock as its price fell drastically." In TVSpeak, this is known as an "ambush". Viewers love it. It is one of the most primitive simple tricks to position the reporter as the fearless answer-seeker. Fact of the matter is...ANYONE can take a microphone and chase somebody down the street. It takes no brains, no analysis and no research. You just do a stakeout and jump on the person. All TV news operations do this, down to the smallest tiny markets. Its a good way to market yourself as going after the bad guys. However, the fact that CNBC likes to point to this shows, how weak and insipid their daily reporting is. They have fewer reporters than the average major market local TV newsroom. Chew on that for a minute...